Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is mentioned, but this is technical implementation detail rather than behavioral guidance for an AI agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (one sentence plus bracketed context and HTTP method). While concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The HTTP method detail doesn't add value for an AI agent's decision-making. The structure isn't front-loaded with the most critical information for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails, what confirmation might be needed, what data is removed, or what the response contains. Given the high-stakes nature of deletion operations, this description leaves critical gaps in understanding tool behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters ('id' and 'project_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete work order contract' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource ('work order contract') but lacks detail about scope or effect. The bracketed text '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' provides domain context but doesn't clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools (like 'update_work_order_contract' or 'create_work_order_contract'). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.